About your Search

20130222
20130222
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
, the supreme court threw out that project in 2006 and a very long almost 80-page opinion by justice john paul stevens said the bush administration had misread the legal precedents and the president lacked authority to set up this system. a number of things happened after that the the end result was a bill that congress passed in 2006, the military commissions act which authorized a version of military commissions, which did not look anything like u.s. district courts but was also considerably more fair than what president bush initially had in mind. one reason was that bush orders said no one convicted here has any appeal to federal courts, and i will have the last word. the statute says the federal courts to get final oversight and military commission. president obama did not support that and thought it was not fair enough. he made a lot of statements during 2008 campaign for president suggesting tremendous skepticism for military commissions and saying the existing military justice system, one colonel couch was trained in another military lawyers, that either of those systems would be a bet
. that is not avoidable sometimes because of the way the terrorists conduct themselves, living among civilians. john: the pauling's show most americans support your position. 83 percent support using jones, 79 percent against american citizens. so i'm sure you want to weigh in here. your comments. >> hi. george mason university. you said drones are justified because the president is subject to congressional authority and has the duty to defend american citizens. ignoring for a moment, do you really think he has been subject to that much congressional authority? >> the framers, the framers of the constitution had just one of our country's independence by war. they knew the threat was that we faced as a small country. they knew we needed an energetic capability to defend ourselves. they wanted a strong commander-in-chief. they created a congress that had power over the purse.
. they can't get it with democratic votes. only republicans. john boehner eric cantor, paul ryan. they are the ones. i hear this all the time. the president signed it. some democrats voted for it, too. some on, people. you are smarter than that. look at who is responsible and blame the people responsible. >> this is "the bill press show." not come in smellivision. the sweatshirt is nice and all but i could use a golden lasso. (vo) only on current tv. we have a big big hour and the iq will go way up. (vo) current tv gets the converstion started weekdays at 9am eastern. >> i'm a slutty bob hope. >> you are. >> the troops love me. (vo) tv and radio talk show host stephanie miller rounds out current's morning news block. >> you're welcome current tv audience for the visual candy. just be grateful current tv does not come in smellivision. the sweatshirt is nice and all but i could use a golden lasso. (vo) only on current tv. [ piano plays ] troy polamalu's going deeper. ♪ ♪ and so is head & shoulders deep clean. [ male announcer ] with 7 benefits it goes dee
rand paul is not satisfied with john brennan's answers or lack thereof. a film generating major controversy ahead of the academy awards. >> i am bad news. i'm not your friend. not going to help you. i'm going to break you. any questions? jenna: well, we've heard the complaints from some lawmakers but why are some in hollywood denouncing "zero dark thirty." ahead of the academy awards? we'll tell you next hey, our salads. [ bop ] [ bop ] [ bop ] you can do that all you want, i don't like v8 juice. [ male announcer ] how about v8 v-fusion. a full serving of vegetables, a full serving of fruit. but what you taste is the fruit. so even you... could've had a v8. jenna: concerns over the possible use of drone strikes inside the united states could, maybe, derail the president's pick to lead the cia. senator rand paul of kentucky now threatening to filibuster john brennan's nomination saying he is not satisfied with the nominee's response whether drone strikes on americans in the united states is legal. and in a letter earlier to brennan this week senator paul said, quote, the question
is an obstacle for chuck hagel's confirmation and vote there in congress and then this john brennan matter is very important to the issue of these targeted drone strikes, rand paul, the senator from kentucky has said that he is willing to hold up that vote on john brennan. if he doesn't receive assurances from the white house that the united states will not target any drone strikes on americans on american soil. so some of this information i think the administration is hoping will at least for now satisfy some of those members with these concerns, wolf. >> it's going to be a tough battle, i take it. both of these confirmations likely to go through next week. but it's by no means a done deal, is it? >> reporter: it's not a -- especially when you have senators saying they may hold up nominees and so we're going to have to wait and see whether or not senator paul is satisfied with the information that he's getting from the white house. but this is perhaps, you know, a break in an impasse that we've seen for many, many months, especially over this issue of benghazi. we heard senator lindsey gr
emanating from china. our guest this john reed. a discussion of saving for retirement with paul taylor. live every day at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> i think it's a pretty accurate that they do not live by the roles of both cases. i think they bend the rules to fit their circumstances. i think americans at all westerners tend to be a lot more legalistic and the things that we went in subcontract. once we see things are written on a contract, that is the be all and all. chinese will sign any contract or agree to any trade agreement and after the ink is dry they would try to figure out how to get around the requirements. it is just a relentless drive to get a head. it is what has built the place over the last 30 years. this relentless drive to get a head and to get better and to improve. they see some of the restrictions we put on them in terms of trade. they see that as we are trying to hold china down. we basically operated in a world without rules for years to build our economy up another we are up to the top are try to hamstring them or tie them up with rules and regulations to hold china d
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)